Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. A brave women...

A brave women...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comquestionlounge
37 Posts 11 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B Brady Kelly

    Stan Shannon wrote:

    That is precisely what the gay marriage campaign is all about.

    And everyone that has been conned by this evil movement thought it was just about affording citizens that have committed no crime, and that pay taxes like everybody else, the same rights as everybody else.

    R Offline
    R Offline
    Rob Graham
    wrote on last edited by
    #14

    If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

    B J S 3 Replies Last reply
    0
    • R Rob Graham

      Regardless of ones own belief on the issue, the real question is why should the politically correct answer to a question which clearly requests an opininon (Do you think...) be required as a prerequisite to winning a fracking beauty contest? She gave here opinion, and explained it, and apologized in the event her opinion was offensive to anyone. What does not having the "correct" opinion have to do with her qualifications to win or not win the contest. (BTW, I think the whole pageant thing is absurd, sexist and demeaning of women, and this just provides more proof of that - at least the absurd part). I hope they lose what few remaining sponsors they have, and disappear from the scene. The only function of this thinly disguised flesh show is to make money for Donald Trump.

      B Offline
      B Offline
      Brady Kelly
      wrote on last edited by
      #15

      Rob Graham wrote:

      Regardless of ones own belief on the issue, the real question is why should the politically correct answer to a question which clearly requests an opininon (Do you think...) be required as a prerequisite to winning a fracking beauty cont

      I agree there, and I do feel that she was unjustly prejudiced by her remark, but it kind of goes with the territory that you buy into by entering such a contest.

      R 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • K kmg365

        As society degrades... maybe in a few years maybe sooner, I expect some will protest for cross species marriage... 20 years ago who would expect current predicament. "What ever makes you happy?" At some point God will owe Sodom an apology or judge this country.

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Rob Graham
        wrote on last edited by
        #16

        kmg365 wrote:

        cross species marriage...

        I think Ilion is already taken... :~

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • R Rob Graham

          If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

          B Offline
          B Offline
          Brady Kelly
          wrote on last edited by
          #17

          Maybe because other people find the term 'gay marriage' unacceptable? I don't know, but if it were me I'd settle for civil unionon paper and 'marriage' in practice.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Stan Shannon

            http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Television/Story?id=7381893&page=2[^] She stood up to the modern moral authoritarianism being forced upon America by liberal and libertarian radicals, even though she knew it would probably cost her the goals she worked so hard to achieve. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is quintessentially mainstream. If belief in such an ancient, wholesome, normal institution is all that is necessary to be considered 'right wing' by social authoritarians than we should embrace the term as a new definition of 'normal'.

            Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Le centriste
            wrote on last edited by
            #18

            You live in a free country: everybody is free to do what they want. You have free speech: everybody should be able to speak their mind without fear, even if they don't agree with you. You live in a country of paradoxes.

            S 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • B Brady Kelly

              Stan Shannon wrote:

              That is precisely what the gay marriage campaign is all about.

              And everyone that has been conned by this evil movement thought it was just about affording citizens that have committed no crime, and that pay taxes like everybody else, the same rights as everybody else.

              S Offline
              S Offline
              Stan Shannon
              wrote on last edited by
              #19

              Brady Kelly wrote:

              And everyone that has been conned by this evil movement thought it was just about affording citizens that have committed no crime, and that pay taxes like everybody else, the same rights as everybody else.

              Precisely. It has nothing to do with any of that.

              Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • K kmg365

                Bigger balls then Hilton, perhaps.

                O Offline
                O Offline
                Oakman
                wrote on last edited by
                #20

                kmg365 wrote:

                Bigger balls then Hilton, perhaps.

                Does he like Paris, too?

                Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K kmg365

                  As society degrades... maybe in a few years maybe sooner, I expect some will protest for cross species marriage... 20 years ago who would expect current predicament. "What ever makes you happy?" At some point God will owe Sodom an apology or judge this country.

                  O Offline
                  O Offline
                  Oakman
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #21

                  kmg365 wrote:

                  I expect some will protest for cross species marriage...

                  If you look around you at work, are you sure that hasn't already been happening?

                  Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

                  B 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • O Oakman

                    kmg365 wrote:

                    I expect some will protest for cross species marriage...

                    If you look around you at work, are you sure that hasn't already been happening?

                    Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

                    B Offline
                    B Offline
                    Brady Kelly
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #22

                    Where does he work? :~

                    O 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • B Brady Kelly

                      Rob Graham wrote:

                      Regardless of ones own belief on the issue, the real question is why should the politically correct answer to a question which clearly requests an opininon (Do you think...) be required as a prerequisite to winning a fracking beauty cont

                      I agree there, and I do feel that she was unjustly prejudiced by her remark, but it kind of goes with the territory that you buy into by entering such a contest.

                      R Offline
                      R Offline
                      Rob Graham
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #23

                      Brady Kelly wrote:

                      but it kind of goes with the territory that you buy into by entering such a contest.

                      I don't think there is anything in the contest rules that says "you must have politically correct opinions, or at least lie about those that are incorrect" or words to that effect. The judge that invented that is simply a gay bigot.

                      B 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • R Rob Graham

                        Brady Kelly wrote:

                        but it kind of goes with the territory that you buy into by entering such a contest.

                        I don't think there is anything in the contest rules that says "you must have politically correct opinions, or at least lie about those that are incorrect" or words to that effect. The judge that invented that is simply a gay bigot.

                        B Offline
                        B Offline
                        Brady Kelly
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #24

                        Maybe one of the judges was a gay bigot, but I'm sure he or she wasn't alone in condemning Prejean's comments.

                        R 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • B Brady Kelly

                          Where does he work? :~

                          O Offline
                          O Offline
                          Oakman
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #25

                          Brady Kelly wrote:

                          Where does he work?

                          Doesn't matter. I could have said as easily "the next time you get on a bus." Although i have noticed that the physical specimens displayed in any fairly large IT shop are especially indicative of interspecies reproduction. I swear I worked in a cube next to a guy whose whinneying laugh made it clear his mother was Catherine the Great.

                          Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • R Rob Graham

                            If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

                            J Offline
                            J Offline
                            John Carson
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #26

                            Rob Graham wrote:

                            If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

                            Maybe because using the word marriage is one of the rights and maybe because your claim that civil unions provide the same rights is baseless. The rights of gay people in relationships are governed by a host of state and federal laws. Neither a state grant of civil unions nor even a state grant of marriage will be sufficient to provide equal rights. Indeed the Federal Defence of Marriage Act explicitly bars certain rights to gay couples, even if they are married (e.g., the right of a foreign marriage partner of a US citizen to emigrate to the US and get a Green Card). Gay people won't get equal rights until anti-gay attitudes have lost their political power. Making gay marriage acceptable is part of the process of combatting the cultural and hence political power of anti-gay attitudes.

                            John Carson

                            O R 2 Replies Last reply
                            0
                            • B Brady Kelly

                              Maybe one of the judges was a gay bigot, but I'm sure he or she wasn't alone in condemning Prejean's comments.

                              R Offline
                              R Offline
                              Rob Graham
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #27

                              No, most of the gay community and fellow travelers have excoriated the young lady. The judge in question was this[^] fine example of gay manhood. Reading the bio suggests he is a serial asshole, as well as gay bigot.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • J John Carson

                                Rob Graham wrote:

                                If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

                                Maybe because using the word marriage is one of the rights and maybe because your claim that civil unions provide the same rights is baseless. The rights of gay people in relationships are governed by a host of state and federal laws. Neither a state grant of civil unions nor even a state grant of marriage will be sufficient to provide equal rights. Indeed the Federal Defence of Marriage Act explicitly bars certain rights to gay couples, even if they are married (e.g., the right of a foreign marriage partner of a US citizen to emigrate to the US and get a Green Card). Gay people won't get equal rights until anti-gay attitudes have lost their political power. Making gay marriage acceptable is part of the process of combatting the cultural and hence political power of anti-gay attitudes.

                                John Carson

                                O Offline
                                O Offline
                                Oakman
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #28

                                John Carson wrote:

                                Making gay marriage acceptable is part of the process of combatting the cultural and hence political power of anti-gay attitudes.

                                I am foursquare behind gay marriage. I see no reason why only heterosexuals should suffer.

                                Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • L Lost User

                                  kmg365 wrote:

                                  cross species marriage

                                  Is your name Jeremy by any chance?

                                  K Offline
                                  K Offline
                                  kmg365
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #29

                                  No, what are you talking about? Link?

                                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • J John Carson

                                    Rob Graham wrote:

                                    If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

                                    Maybe because using the word marriage is one of the rights and maybe because your claim that civil unions provide the same rights is baseless. The rights of gay people in relationships are governed by a host of state and federal laws. Neither a state grant of civil unions nor even a state grant of marriage will be sufficient to provide equal rights. Indeed the Federal Defence of Marriage Act explicitly bars certain rights to gay couples, even if they are married (e.g., the right of a foreign marriage partner of a US citizen to emigrate to the US and get a Green Card). Gay people won't get equal rights until anti-gay attitudes have lost their political power. Making gay marriage acceptable is part of the process of combatting the cultural and hence political power of anti-gay attitudes.

                                    John Carson

                                    R Offline
                                    R Offline
                                    Rob Graham
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #30

                                    I don't disagree at all with most of what you say. I think equal protection under the law should cover this. The simple problem though, is that by insisting on using the term marriage, gays exacerbate religiously based opposition. They should instead fight for comprehensive civil unions that do grant all of the appropriate legal rights. Why let a name stand in the way? Focus on the legal, avoid the cultural, religious and overly emotional. Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc.

                                    O J 2 Replies Last reply
                                    0
                                    • R Rob Graham

                                      I don't disagree at all with most of what you say. I think equal protection under the law should cover this. The simple problem though, is that by insisting on using the term marriage, gays exacerbate religiously based opposition. They should instead fight for comprehensive civil unions that do grant all of the appropriate legal rights. Why let a name stand in the way? Focus on the legal, avoid the cultural, religious and overly emotional. Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc.

                                      O Offline
                                      O Offline
                                      Oakman
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #31

                                      Rob Graham wrote:

                                      Frankly, I think the term marriage should be stricken from all laws, and replaced by civil union. Let the churches have exclusive territory over marriage, and the state exclusive territory over civil union, that being the only status that confers legal rights such as survivorship, tax status, joint property ownership, etc.

                                      The problem with this point of view, which I espouse (pun intended) is that it leaves no room for folks to impose their morality on other people. Folks like Stan and Ilion can't be happy if there's a chance that anyone else is happy doing something they are afraid they might like, but that mommy said would grow hair on their palms.

                                      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • R Rob Graham

                                        If that were the real issue here, then why does the gay rights movement find legal civil unions (which provide the same rights) unacceptable? Why the insistence of the word marriage?

                                        S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        Synaptrik
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #32

                                        Technically its due to the use of the word: "marriage" in thousands of federal legal documents. Civil Union does not appear in these legal documents. So its essentially a matter of making marriage a religious institution and changing all legal documents referencing the word to "civil union" or allowing gays to get married. Its a separation of church and state matter. If marriage is a religious institution then there should be no tax breaks for it. But if two people share their entire lives together and wish to have legal protection with regard to their property and health then they should have that under the law. I don't really care what they call it. But legal rights should be afforded to all.

                                        This statement is false

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • L Le centriste

                                          You live in a free country: everybody is free to do what they want. You have free speech: everybody should be able to speak their mind without fear, even if they don't agree with you. You live in a country of paradoxes.

                                          S Offline
                                          S Offline
                                          Stan Shannon
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #33

                                          Le Centriste wrote:

                                          You live in a country of paradoxes

                                          No, I live in a country in the midst of a fascist take over.

                                          Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                                          S 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups